Liberal Fascism's Chapter 10 is full of good information. I feel like I could probably write three different entries on this chapter alone. However, in honor of the talks at Copenhagen this week, I thought I would limit my entry to the "Green Fascism" discussed in this chapter.
Recently, "climate-gate" has exposed a number of problems with the "science" behind the global warming movement. Those issues have been discussed in other areas, and I won't cover them here. The left is very fond of demanding massive government invasion into private and corporate life in the hopes of fixing global warming. If we were able to meet all of the requirements of Kyoto, we wouldn't reverse global warming, even by the lefts own admission. Instead, we would only slow the increase by 0.01 degree Celsius. Even if you believe in global warming, this simply doesn't sound like a worth while solution. When you factor in the costs of implementing Kyoto in dollars, technology, and even population, the solutions purposed (and insisted on) by the left seem ludicrous.
A number of conservatives have pointed out that there are other solutions. If we knew the temperature of the planet would increase by one degree over the next one hundred years, would this be bad? Extreme cold kills far more than extreme heat. If we knew a one degree increase would lead to an additional 1,000 deaths during the warm months, but save 10,000 lives during the winter months, would we still fight global warming? If we could take a fraction of the money the left wants to spend on combating global warming and use it in Africa, could we cure malaria in Africa? If so, where would the money be better spent. These are the types of debates the left runs from.
Then there's nuclear energy. I don't believe in "catastrophic man-made global warming". However, I do know of at least one solution that I would support and that would lead to a cleaner environment. By constructing more nuclear plants in the United States, we would have more clean energy, would have another source of energy, and would keep a lot of money from flowing into the hands of our enemies. However, the next time you are in a debate with a "progressive" suggest nuclear energy as a solution. In my experience, their face will light up a nice festive red.
Mr. Goldberg points out, "To approach environmental questions as if they were economic questions--which they ultimately are -- seems sacrilegious." Any solution that doesn't involve massive government controls isn't worth discussing. What this really tells us is that the left isn't really interested in solving environmental problems: they're interested in increasing government control.